On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On 7/18/2012 8:49 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) >> <claud...@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> I have a dev available now so we are ready to start. >>> >>> I have been out of the loop for a while so I’ll start by looking at >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52476, please point me to >>> any other relevant information. And please add ‘Windows’ to the subject line >>> for any Windows related issue so it will be easier for me to know which >>> messages I have to read. >>> >>> I hope to have good news soon. >> >> Random question from the crowd... >> >> The WinNT MPM doesn't load the address of AcceptEx dynamically via >> WSAIoctl, though that is a documented requirement and shown in the >> AcceptEx sample I found. >> >> Is it possible that this results in flaky behavior depending on >> third-party software installed? > > That is entirely possible but unlikely. The present flakey behavior is not > surrounding AcceptEx(), it works for the vast majority of configurations > until incomplete socket providers are added. But I'd be happy to see a patch > to resolve AcceptEx dynamically.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1363312 > > The issues now are twofold; > > 1. When using AcceptEx() we always attempt to recycle the socket context. > We should make this configurable and avoidable. Many socket providers > have implemented AcceptEx() and then trash the socket making it fail > any attempt at reuse. > > 2. When using accept() we are doing 'something wrong' compared to our 2.2 > code, which causes the timeouts to be other than expected by APR. This > in turn causes the mod_ssl blocking read to fail to block. > > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
